Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
<5hofnd$l3e at ruacad.runet.edu>...
> In article <01bc3976$50366ec0$0a4892cf at mycomputer>,
> Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > The idea that you posit here assumes that the organism can see-ahead
and
> >determine what is best in the long run. This is a no-no, is it not?
>> It is a no-no.
>> > Dr. Eldredge wrote, " Selection can not be for the 'good of the
species.'
> >It can only be a measure of what works best for the individual organisms
in
> >their struggle for existence. ..."
>> Careful with the appeals to authority. I doubt Eldredge would deny that
> species sometimes compete for resources. The presence of one species
> changes the environment faced by another species. And I seriously doubt
> that Eldredge would claim that environments, in general, remain constant.
> Individuals of a sexually reproducing species may have greater
reproductive
> success in a given environment than individuals of an asexually
reproducing
> species. Selection is still acting at the individual level; nature does
not
> provide a guarantee to that at least one member of a species will always
be
> allowed to produce offspring.
>> > In other words, why sex??????
>> Why *not* sex? You've made the point that sexually reproducing
> individuals only pass on 50% of their genes. Assuming that a population
> consists of some sexually reproducing and some asexually reproducing
> individuals, sexual reproduction is not expected to be fixed unless the
> sexually reproducing individuals have substantially greater reproductive
> success. Why is this not conceivable?
>> The fact is this: sex is *not* a problem for evolutionary biology.
> Theories regarding why sex persists (a separate question from how sex
> arose - which is also not a problem) are covered by any decent
college-level
> evolution text.
>> Rich Kliman
> Dept. of Biology
> Radford University
> *standard disclaimer*
>
Any "decent college-level text" would address the point that Dr. Eldredge
makes and not talk around it. His point is that if the ultra-Darwinist (his
term) view is correct, then sex is a paradox.
The view that he is attacking (if this is the correct term) is that
evolution is not simply the struggle to leave as many copies of one's genes
to the next generation as possible --- as biologists seem to think.
Have you read "Reinventing Darwin ?"
Regards, Joe